Trouble logging in?We were forced to invalidate all account passwords. You will have to reset your password to login. If you have trouble resetting your password, please send us a message with as much helpful information as possible, such as your username and any email addresses you may have used to register. Whatever you do, please do not create a new account. That is not the right solution, and it is against our forum rules to own multiple accounts.

Because you cannot always use the lack of industrial capacity as an excuse to compensate for the lack of strategic foresight. The Chinese, with their less than adequate industrial capacity, was actually manufacturing and procuring licensed small arms of all types to its armies whereas the Japanese insisted on mass producing existing, but inadequate weapons than to adapt to the constant changes on the battlefield. This also had to do with the lack of competition within the Japanese arms industry, who were some of the earliest versions of the profit-seeking military industrial complex.

This is not a fault of industrial capacity, this is the fault of military planners. Japanese naval commanders remarked on numerous occasions that the A6M Zero proved to be so successful in the initial stages of the war that they never considered a replacement until it was too late.

- Tak

Just a question, when Army of Japan fact strong Army such as Soviet or US on land? Most of time they engage poor armed like Chinese, Mongolia, Viet Minh v.v... and little French troops in East Sea Peninsula. While most of time they fighitng US, UK on the ocean, thus most of their IC was spend to navy and air force, the amry also has many plans to upgrades their equipment, but only at low piority. Result, when they begin engage US army on island, Soviet on continents, it is too late for upgrade their army since their navy, air force were defeated and Japan's mainland is bombardment.

Just a question, when Army of Japan fact strong Army such as Soviet or US on land? Most of time they engage poor armed like Chinese, Mongolia, Viet Minh v.v...

Japan actually engaged Soviet forces as early as 1932, which eventually accumulated to infamous battles such as the Nomonhan Incident. Unfortunate for Japan, the Soviet commander at the time of the incident was none other than Zhukov himself. Even though Japan secured a peace negotiation not in their favor, the end to the border conflict proved to be a mixed blessing. After all, Japan would be free of Soviet harassment until 1945. Unfortunately, its unknown how much Japan actually learned from these border conflicts.

OTOH, though the overall quality of the Chinese army was poor, its German trained divisions equipped with German gear proved to be very capable. As a result, the Japanese Army eventually came up with the Type 99 Arisaka for its infantry, which was a local variant of the Mauser that chambered the 7.7×58mm as opposed to the 7.92×57mm.

Another curiosity to note is the fact that none of Japan's machine guns were belt fed. They either rely on magazines, strips, clips and rarely, drums. Even though some are more than capable of being belt-fed. The reason for this is more of a psychological factor than others.

Japan actually engaged Soviet forces as early as 1932, which eventually accumulated to infamous battles such as the Nomonhan Incident. Unfortunate for Japan, the Soviet commander at the time of the incident was none other than Zhukov himself. Even though Japan secured a peace negotiation not in their favor, the end to the border conflict proved to be a mixed blessing. After all, Japan would be free of Soviet harassment until 1945. Unfortunately, its unknown how much Japan actually learned from these border conflicts.

OTOH, though the overall quality of the Chinese army was poor, its German trained divisions equipped with German gear proved to be very capable. As a result, the Japanese Army eventually came up with the Type 99 Arisaka for its infantry, which was a local variant of the Mauser that chambered the 7.7×58mm as opposed to the 7.92×57mm.

Another curiosity to note is the fact that none of Japan's machine guns were belt fed. They either rely on magazines, strips, clips and rarely, drums. Even though some are more than capable of being belt-fed. The reason for this is more of a psychological factor than others.

- Tak

The Far East Front of Soviet at 1932 don't has any tanks such as T-34, KVs or IS. Some divisions were trained by German are not enough for become a real threat to miliion man strenght of Kwangtung Army, thus Army plans are set at low piority behind the air force and navy for Pacific war with US Because don't has enough Industrial Capacity to cover all like US.

The Far East Front of Soviet at 1932 don't has any tanks such as T-34, KVs or IS.

You don't need the T-34, KVs or IS to prove Soviet armor superiority. The existing Japanese armor, such as the Type 89 and anti-tank weapons had already proven in the incident to be completely inferior to the Soviet BT-series tanks.

Although I was not talking about the existence of Japanese heavy industry at the time, I was talking about small-arms.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Panzerklein

Some divisions were trained by German are not enough for become a real threat to miliion man strenght of Kwangtung Army

Enough of a threat for Japan to maintain more than half of their total army manpower in China. What people seldom recall is the fact that approximately half of Japan's total army casualties occurred in China.

That is unfortunately incorrect. The Type 3 Machine-gun was designed and produced in 1914. Itself based on the Hotchkiss M1914 from France, which took a strip. The M2 Browning was not in service until 1933.